Wording ala the 08 January 2003 draft [1]
Comment #1a
Aaron Leventhal, 07 Oct 2002 [2]
Add to Benefits: physically disabled users that cannot use pointing devices
or speech input. For example, users with ALS who use single switches to
simulate keystrokes.
Comment #1b
WWAAC (via David Poulson and Colette Nicolle) , 4 Nov 2002 [3]
Benefits: The illustrated benefit is probably not such a good example as
speech input is only appropriate in a limited number of cases. A better
example would be that keyboard mapping for functions allows specialist
switch input devices to work with the applications
Proposal #1
Add a 3rd benefit: Individuals who are physically disabled and cannot use
pointing devices or speech input can have access to the functionality of
the Web content or site.
==============
Comment #2a
WWAAC (via David Poulson and Colette Nicolle) , 4 Nov 2002 [3]
minimum level success criteria #: Could be made clearer i.e. user agents
and event handlers may be too technical for some readers. Checkpoint 2.1 is
particularly difficult to follow.
Comment #2b
Sun (via Earl Johnson), 27 Oct 2002 [4]
Suggest rewording "Minimum Level" to "content uses only event handlers that
are designed so that, at a minimum, they are operable through character
input." The current wording can be interpreted as meaning an event handler
can not also support mouse input (i.e. that it must be a keyboard event
handler only).
Proposal #2a
event handlers are designed so that they are not tied to a specific input
device (i.e., "device independent").
Note: refer to checkpoint 5.3 for information regarding support in user tools.
Proposal #2b
event handlers are designed so that they are not tied to a specific input
device (i.e., "device independent").
The user must be able to interact with the content either
- through a pointing device such as a mouse or a stylus or
- through the keyboard or
- through keyboard emulation.
Note: refer to checkpoint 5.3 for information regarding support in user tools.
Rationale #2
I am toying with the idea of "user requirements" attached to each success
criterion that explain *why* this criterion is important. In other words,
tie each success criterion back to a user need. It might make each
criterion too much and is likely redundant with the benefits (so they could
be collapsed)...not sure I like it, but thought I'd give it a try. A
couple comments suggested we have more why/how info related to each checkpoint.
============
Comment #3
Terry Thompson, 21 Oct 2002 [5]
Maybe what confuses me here is the prepositional phrase on the end ("to the
content or user agent"). Is it necessary? What else would a user be
providing character input into other than the content, user agent, or both?
As I think about it though, I'm confused by this entire checkpoint. Is this
not placing an emphasis on character-accessibility over mouse
accessibility? Why not "device-independence"?
Proposal #3a
Ensure that all of the functionality is operable via a variety of types of
input device.
Proposal #3b
Ensure that all of the functionality is not tied to a particular type of
input device.
============
Comment #4a
Sun (via Earl Johnson), 27 Oct 2002 [4]
Level 2: what is a "more abstract event"? Same question applies if the
wording for this should be "more abstract event handler".
Comment #4b
SAP (via Audrey Weinland), 31 Oct 2002 [8]
level 2 #1: This item is not clear as currently worded and needs rewording.
Does it mean to use device- independent event handlers? If so, say that
instead. Otherwise, clarify. What is a "more abstract event"? "Used" how?
Proposal #4
Delete this criterion. If they satisfy the minimum level criterion, it is
not likely there will more that they can do...i.e., if they have already
created something device independent, then creating something *even more*
device independent is likely just to confuse people more than inspire them.
============
Comment #5
IBM (via Andi Snow-Weaver), 29 Oct 2002 [6]
The Character input definition refers to a character set called the W3C
Character Model. Are the tab and arrow keys part of this character set?
link to where this character model is defined.
Proposal #5
If proposal #2 is accepted, then we would not need to rely on "character
input." For reference, W3C Working Draft: Character Model for the World
Wide Web 1.0 [7] does not include tab, alt, or other keys that might be on
a keyboard. The model only refers to text strings (per my ignorant
understanding of the model).
--
[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20030108.html#device-indie-events
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0023.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0135.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0111.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0080.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0117.html
[7] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0130.html
--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--